Practitioner Research Network
This project is in large part do to the work of Lonnie Nelson who published the article "Neurotherapy and the Challenge of Empirical Support: A Call for a Neurotherapy Practice Research Network." Journal of Neurotherapy. Vol 7(2), 2003, pp. 53-67. I encourage those interested to read this article as it is both clearly written and motivating. As a project of the ISNR Research Foundation the vision of the PRN is to facilitate the collaboration of physically distant neurofeedback practitioners in research projects beyond the scope of an individual practice. One of the core elements of this network would be a website where these scientist-practitioners would submit data on client treatment and outcome that would enter the data pool for later analysis for publication. Of course in order for this to work there must be established inclusions/exclusion criteria, assessment and treatment protocols as well as standardized outcome measures. There was a Small Group Discussion on this topic at the 2008 ISNR meeting in San Antonio at 1:30pm on Friday. There was also be a Panel that same day at 8pm on the PRN with Joel Lubar, Lonnie Nelson, David Trudeau and myself (Jay Gattis). Meetings Efficacy Guidelines (AAPB/ISNR) Level 1: Not Empirically Supported : Published Research: Anecdotal/case studes, non-peer reviewed Level 2: Possibly Efficacious : Published Research: at least 1 study with well-defined outcome measures; lacks random assignment (RCT) with control group. Level 3: Probably Efficacious : Published Research: multiple observational studies (outcome-only studies, no control group), clinical studies, wait-list controlled studies, and within-subject and intrasubject replication studies that indicated efficacy: 0 - 1 RCT's. Level 4: Efficacious : Published Research: : a. investigational treatment is statistically superior to a no-treatment or sham/placebo control or equivalent to a treatment of established efficacy(i.e. alternative treatment group) in a study with sufficient power to detect moderate differences. Random assignment is required. : b. studies have been conducted with a population treated for a specific problem (inclusion criteria are delineated in a reliable, operationally defined manner). : c. study used valid and clearly specified outcome measures related to the problem being treated. : d. data subjected to appropriate data analysis. : e. diagnostic and treatment variables and procedures are clearly defined to permit replication. : f. the superiority or equivalence has been shown in at least 2 independent research settings. Level 5: Efficacious and Specific : Published Research: In addition to Level 4 requirements, the investigational treatment has been shown to be statistically superior to a credible sham therapy, pill or alternative bona fide treatment in at least two independent research settings. Current Efficacy Status for Neurofeedback *Alcoholism - Probably Efficacious *Anxiety - Efficacious *ADHD - Efficacious *Autism - Possibly Efficacious *Mood Disorders - Possibly Efficacious *Epilepsy - Efficacious *Fibromyalgia - Possibly Efficacious *Insomnia - Probably Efficacious *PTSD - Possibly Efficacious *TBI - Probably Efficacious Source: Yucha, C. & Montgomery, D. (2008) Evidence-based practice in biofeedback and neurofeedback. Wheat Ridge, CO: AAPB. image:Research summarization.jpg Source: Nelson, L. (2003) Neurotherapy and the challenge of empirical support: A call for a neurotherapy practice research network. Journal of Neurotherapy, 7(2), 53-67. Projects VLF-Z Tx Comparison - Comparison of the efficacy of very low frequency training and z-score training in the treatment of ADHD. Example Sx-Q Tx Comparison - Comparison of the efficacy of symptom-based and qEEG-guided neurofeedback protocol selection in the treatment of ADHD. Category:Research Category:Practitioner Research Network